Should the Brazilian government and people have the right to exploit the rainforest as a resource?

Conservationists and economists lock horns over the right and to what extent natural resources can be exploited constantly. Whilst conservationists recognise that LEDCs urgently need economic development to improve the quality of life, they regard total exploitation as threatening, both to the environment and to the country involved. Similarly, economists are aware that total exploitation of natural resources will not be beneficial in the long-term, but believe that LEDCs require immediate, short-term action to bring about economic progress. Neither group is wrong; conservationists are right to point out that forests are under threat, whilst economists are correct in pointing out the urgency in bringing in revenue to benefit countries.
One area where this debate is in full swing is Brazil, where the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is continuing at an alarming rate. In a total area of 4,100,000 sq km of rainforest, 699,000 sq km have been removed for lumber or grazing land for cattle. The percentage of rainforest cover stands at 82%, down from 95% in 1970. The main reason for felling the forest is to convert the land into agricultural land. 90% of the felling occurs for farming reasons; 60% for cattle ranches and 30% for small-scale agricultural production. Demand for beef in Europe and North America is insatiable and, in large numbers, can fetch large profits. Smaller farmers are also likely to earn marginally more in subsistence farming than in informal factory work in Sao Paulo or Rio de Janierio.
Contrary to popular belief, only 1% of the rainforest is felled for timber. However, the timber that is felled is of extraordinary value on the world commodities market - woods such as mahogany and ebony are very expensive in the western world. Timber is also increasing in value year by year, with the recent boom in house building in Asia and America fuelling high demand for lumber. Consequently, there is a huge economic incentive, particularly in the short-term to preserve the rainforest, both for large investors and small farmers.
Many people are also anxious to ensure that views of the rainforest are not skewed by untrue facts. Brazilian logging companies have their own statistics which appear to suggest that deforestation is not as severe a problem as perceived. They claim that only 2% of the rainforest has been felled since the 70's, and those areas are on the periphery of the forests where there is already human influence and the forests cannot be regarded as pristine and undisturbed. However, these facts are difficult to reconcile with NASA photographs of the rainforest which show huge swaths of felled forest, certainly more than 2%. However, environmetalist groups also are selective in the information they present, and regularly fail to point out the work logging companies do towards replanting and ensuring that forestry is carefully managed.
Nevertheless, the rate of deforestation is undoubtedly high. This destruction of the rainforest has a profound impact upon a variety of interest groups. One of the major benefactors from a healthy and diverse rainforest is the atmosphere, which indirectly has a bearing upon everyone in the world. The Amazon Rainforest is known as the 'lungs of the world' and are estimated to store over 10% of the world's stored CO2 and thus accounts for 10% of the world's net primary productivity. Many scientists believe that losing the Amazonian rainforest would have severe implications upon CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Furthermore, the Amazon rainforest is still largely unexplored, and certainly most of the plant and animal life has never been categorised or examined. This suggests that, with most medicines and ingredients stemming from rainforests, losing this diversity would also mean a loss of potentially crucial medicines. This would not only be a tragic loss for medical researchers, but also for countries with rainforests, as there would be a massive loss in potential revenues and export power. In a country where 31% of the population lives below the poverty line, and GDP stands at $8,800, losing such a valuable and potentially profitable resource would be tragic. Preserving the rainforest would also be potentially profitable in terms of managed mining and forestry. Whilst not providing immediate revenue, managed forestry would be a long-term and effective method of providing a sustainable and steady income. Tourism would also be a sustainable income earner, provided that the rainforest is preserved.
However, a significant body of opinion within Brazil, represented mainly by the industrial and land owners want to see short-term economic progress within Brazil. Whilst all the main political parties are leftist or even Marxist, these groups hold significant power within Brazil, especially when government needs financial backing for projects. Consequently, there has been a growth in the amount of deforestation and mining projects going ahead within the Amazon basin. There are also many poorer citizens who not only wish, but need, to see an opening up rainforests to allow farmland to be created. Significant numbers of city dwellers are leaving major urban areas for the interior in order to seek a better standard of living. Their livelihoods are closely tied in with an expansion in the amount of land available for farming. These people do recognise that preservation is important for Brazil's rainforests, but when hungry stomachs need filling, this argument holds little sway.
In the Western world it is often difficult to comprehend the extraordinary difficulties LEDC governments face in making decisions regarding sensitive eco-systems that can be vastly profitable. In a society dominated by the service an manufacturing sector, and where we can afford to protect ecologically important areas of nature, it can often seem short-sighted of other nations to exploit their natural resources. Yet, when countries as poor as Brazil have such vastly lucrative resources such as the Amazon rainforest, it is easy to understand why they are so keen to make the most of those potential income earners.
There are many sceptics of the significance of the rainforests, particularly with regard to their importance to climate regulation. Phillip Stott, an eminent geographer considers the 'lungs of the earth' theory the "daftest of all theories". His views are largely based upon the notion that in the history of the earth, rainforests have not been a significant eco-system affecting the formation of the climate. However, he does not disagree that the rainforests should be, partially at least, persevered for the benefit of the plant and animal life that exists within them, and the potential long-term benefits of tourism and sustainable forestry. Perhaps further evidence is needed before this debate can be solved. Unfortunately this evidence is difficult to collate, particularly when climate, an unpredictable and whimsical force, is concerned. Stott and other argue that, whilst trends may suggest changes in climate, there is scant evidence to support this. And, indeed, they have a valid point. However, it may not be raining but if there are dark clouds on the horizon you get the washing in!
Personally, I think that the preservation of the rainforests is crucial, not just in terms of preserving the current climate on the earth, and because it will be more economically sustainable, but because of the ethical issues involved. I do not believe we hold the right to destroy or pollute the very earth on which our own survival depends. Creationists through to evolutionary scientists cannot deny that the world is a beautiful and awe-inspiring place; something beyond the bounds of human abilities to create. What right or reason would we have to damage such a precious environment?